System and methods for quantitatively evaluating complexity of computing system configuration

ABSTRACT

Techniques are disclosed for quantitatively evaluating the complexity of configuring computing systems. By way of example, a technique for quantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with a configuration of a system under evaluation comprises the following steps/operations. Configuration-related data for the system under evaluation is collected. At least a portion of the configuration-related data is quantitatively analyzed to estimate a configuration complexity of the system under evaluation. The configuration complexity of the system under evaluation is reported based on the quantitative analysis. The technique may further comprise assessing a quality of the configuration of the system under evaluation. Then, the reporting step/operation may further comprise reporting the configuration complexity of the system under evaluation based on the quantitative analysis and the quality assessment.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a divisional of pending U.S. application Ser. No.11/205,972, filed Aug. 17, 2005, the disclosure of which is incorporatedby reference herein.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to computing systems and, moreparticularly, to techniques for quantitatively evaluating the complexityof configuring such computing systems.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The complexity of configuring computing systems represents a majorimpediment to efficient, error-free, and cost-effective deployment andmanagement of computing systems of all scales, from handheld devices todesktop personal computers to small-business servers to enterprise-scaleand global-scale information technology (IT) backbones. By way ofexample, configuring a computing system may encompass any process viawhich any of the system's structure, component inventory, topology, oroperational parameters are persistently modified by a human operator orsystem administrator.

A computing system with a high degree of configuration complexitydemands human resources to manage that complexity, increasing the totalcost of ownership of the computing system. Likewise, complexityincreases the amount of time that must be spent interacting with acomputing system to configure it to perform the desired function, againconsuming human resources and decreasing efficiency and agility.Finally, configuration complexity results in configuration errors, ascomplexity challenges human reasoning and results in erroneous decisionseven by skilled operators.

Since the burdens of configuration complexity are so high, it is evidentthat computing system designers, architects, and implementers will seekto reduce configuration complexity, and likewise the purchasers, users,and managers of computing systems will seek to assemble systems withminimal configuration complexity. In order to do so, they must be ableto quantitatively evaluate the degree of configuration complexityexposed by a particular computing system, i.e., designers, architects,and developers can evaluate the systems they build and optimize them forreduced complexity; purchasers, users, and managers can evaluateprospective purchases for complexity before investing in them.Furthermore, quantitative evaluation of configuration complexity canhelp computing service providers and outsourcers quantify the amount ofhuman management that will be needed to provide a given service,allowing them to more effectively evaluate costs and set price points.

All these scenarios require standardized, representative, accurate,easily-compared quantitative assessments of configuration complexity,and motivate the need for a system and methods for quantitativelyevaluating the configuration complexity of an arbitrary computingsystem.

The prior art of computing system evaluation includes no system ormethods for quantitatively evaluating the configuration complexity of anarbitrary computing system. Well-studied computing system evaluationareas include system performance analysis, software complexity analysis,human-computer interaction analysis, and dependability evaluation.

System performance analysis attempts to compute quantitative measures ofthe performance of a computer system, considering both hardware andsoftware components. This is a well-established area rich in analysistechniques and systems. However, none of these methodologies and systemsfor system performance analysis consider configuration-related aspectsof the system under evaluation, nor do they collect or analyzeconfiguration-related data. Therefore, system performance analysisprovides no insight into the configuration complexity of the computingsystem being evaluated.

Software complexity analysis attempts to compute quantitative measuresof the complexity of a piece of software code, considering both theintrinsic complexity of the code, as well as the complexity of creatingand maintaining the code. However, processes for software complexityanalysis do not collect configuration-related statistics or data andtherefore provides no insight into the configuration complexity of thecomputing system running the analyzed software.

Human-computer interaction (HCI) analysis attempts to identifyinteraction problems between human users and computer systems, typicallyfocusing on identifying confusing, error-prone, or inefficientinteraction patterns. However, HCI analysis focuses on detectingproblems in human-computer interaction rather than performing anobjective, quantitative complexity analysis of that interaction. HCIanalysis methods are not designed specifically for measuringconfiguration complexity, and typically do not operate onconfiguration-related data. In particular, HCI analysis collects humanperformance data from observations of many human users, and thus doesnot collect configuration-related data directly from a system undertest.

Additionally, HCI analysis typically produces qualitative resultssuggesting areas for improvement of a particular user interface orinteraction pattern and, thus, do not produce quantitative results thatevaluate an overall configuration complexity of a system, independent ofthe particular user interface experience. The Model Human Processorapproach to HCI analysis does provide objective, quantitative results;however, these results quantify interaction time for motor-functiontasks like moving a mouse or clicking an on-screen button, and thus donot provide insight into computer system configuration complexity.

Finally, human-aware dependability evaluation combines aspects ofobjective, reproducible performance benchmarking with HCI analysistechniques with a focus on configuration-related problems, see, e.g.,Brown et al., “Experience with Evaluating Human-Assisted RecoveryProcesses,” Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference onDependable Systems and Networks, Los Alamitos, Calif., EEEE, 2004. Thisapproach included a system for measuring configuration quality asperformed by human users, but did not measure configuration complexityand did not provide reproducibility or objective measures.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides techniques for quantitatively evaluatingthe complexity of configuring computing systems.

By way of example, in one aspect of the invention, a technique forquantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with a configurationof a system under evaluation comprises the following steps/operations.Configuration-related data for the system under evaluation is collected.At least a portion of the configuration-related data is quantitativelyanalyzed to estimate a configuration complexity of the system underevaluation. The configuration complexity of the system under evaluationis reported based on the quantitative analysis.

The technique may further comprise assessing a quality of theconfiguration of the system under evaluation. Then, the reportingstep/operation may further comprise reporting the configurationcomplexity of the system under evaluation based on the quantitativeanalysis and the quality assessment.

The step/operation of collecting configuration-related data for thesystem under evaluation may further comprise capturing one or moreconfiguration processes. This may comprise one or more of: monitoring abehavior of one or more human operators; analyzing documentation or ascript; allowing direct manual entry of a configuration process; andloading one or more explicit specifications of a configuration process.Further, the step/operation of collecting configuration-related data forthe system under evaluation may further comprise gathering data on oneor more configuration controls. This may comprise gathering datacomprising one or more of parameters, executable operations, statusdisplays, and configuration repositories.

The step/operation of quantitatively analyzing at least a portion of theconfiguration-related data to estimate the configuration complexity ofthe system under evaluation may further comprise computing one or moreconfiguration complexity scores. The one or more configurationcomplexity scores may comprise one or more of a human completion timescore, an error rate score, an error severity score for a specifiednumber of human operators with specified skill levels, and a rawcomplexity score based on statistical summarization of the collectedconfiguration-related data. Further, the step/operation ofquantitatively analyzing at least a portion of the configuration-relateddata to estimate the configuration complexity of the system underevaluation may further comprise using a model of human configurationcost.

The step/operation of reporting the configuration complexity of thesystem under evaluation further may comprise reporting results of thecomplexity analysis in one or more of a human-readable format and amachine-readable format. Further, the step/operation of reporting theconfiguration complexity of the system under evaluation may furthercomprise producing a report via an algorithm that computes a financialimpact of a specified configuration process.

Advantageously, the steps/operation of the invention may be useable todynamically adapt one or more configuration interfaces to minimizeconfiguration complexity. They may also be useable to optimize afinancial cost of providing one or more hosting services by selectingone or more system configurations that minimize a configuration cost.

These and other objects, features and advantages of the presentinvention will become apparent from the following detailed descriptionof illustrative embodiments thereof, which is to be read in connectionwith the accompanying drawings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration complexityevaluation system and its associated environment, according to anembodiment of the invention.

FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating a configuration complexityevaluation methodology, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration-related datacollector component, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 is a flow diagram illustrating a configuration-related datacollector methodology, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a complexity analyzer component,according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 6 is a block diagram illustrating a reporter component, accordingto an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 7 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration quality assessorcomponent, according to an embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating a computer system forimplementing a configuration complexity evaluation system, according toan embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

As will be illustratively described below, principles of the presentinvention provide techniques for quantitatively evaluating thecomplexity of configuring computing systems such as centralized,distributed, and embedded computing systems. By way of example,configuring a computing system may encompass any process via which anyof the system's structure, component inventory, topology, or operationalparameters are persistently modified by a human operator or systemadministrator. Examples include, but are not limited to, installing,provisioning, upgrading, or decommissioning software or hardware;adjusting settings on two or more systems so that they are able tocommunicate with each other; adjusting system parameters to alter systemperformance or availability; and repairing damage to a system's stateresulting from a security incident or component failure.

Configuration complexity refers to the degree of simplicity ordifficulty perceived by human operators, system administrators, or userswho attempt to perform configuration tasks on a computing system.Quantification of a computer system's configuration complexity is usefulacross a broad set of computing-related disciplines including, but notlimited to, computing system architecture, design, and implementation;implementation of automated system management; packaging and pricing ofcomputing-related services such as outsourcing services; productselection; sales and marketing; and development of systemoperations/administration training programs.

Principles of the present invention provide a system and methods forproducing a standard, reproducible evaluation of the configurationcomplexity of a computer system. Note that we illustratively define asystem's configuration as all state, parameter settings, options, andcontrols that affect the behavior, functionality, performance, andnon-functional attributes of a computing system. We also illustrativelydefine configuration complexity as the degree of simplicity ordifficulty perceived by human operators, system administrators, users,or automated tools that attempt to alter a computing system'sconfiguration to achieve specific configuration goals.

Furthermore, principles of the present invention address the problem ofobjectively, reproducibly quantifying configuration complexity ofcomputing systems, which has not been done previously in the domain ofdistributed and enterprise computing systems. In accordance withillustrative embodiments, a system and methods are provided for solvingthe above problem based on a benchmarking perspective, which providesquantitative, reproducible, objective results that can be comparedacross systems, all at a low operational cost. We propose illustrativemethods for collecting configuration-related data from a computingsystem that enable the quantification of configuration complexity in anobjective, reproducible, low cost manner.

As will be further described below in detail, an illustrativearchitecture of the invention includes a configuration data collector, aconfiguration quality assessor, a complexity analyzer, and a reporter,each corresponding to a phase in the overall process of quantifying acomputer system's configuration complexity. It is to be understood thatwhile each of these phases are described below as discrete phases, thevarious phases can potentially overlap (e.g., a continuous system thatcollects new configuration-related data while analyzing older data).

In a first phase, the configuration data collector collectsconfiguration-related data from the computing system.Configuration-related data provides information on the computer system'sconfiguration, i.e., such data describes the system's currentconfiguration, the options available for altering its configuration, theeffects of those options on the system's configuration and behavior, andthe procedures via which the system's configuration can be altered by ahuman operator or automated tool. In particular, configuration-relateddata may include traces of configuration procedures performed on thecomputing system by expert human administrators, and may also includedata on the set of human-visible configuration controls, their possiblevalues, and the dependencies between different controls.

Next, in a second phase of the configuration complexity quantificationprocess, the configuration quality assessor analyzes the computingsystem under evaluation to determine the quality of its configuration.During this phase, the system under evaluation is presumed to be in thedesired configuration. In particular, if the collectedconfiguration-related data includes traces of configuration procedures,these procedures should have already been performed on the system underevaluation. Configuration quality is measured in whatever metrics areneeded to assess how well the configuration of the system underevaluation meets the configuration goals set out for it. Typically,configuration quality will be assessed in terms of the functionality,performance, correctness, availability, and quality of service providedby the system under evaluation.

The results from the configuration data collector and configurationquality assessor feed into a third component of the system, i.e., acomplexity analyzer. This component analyzes the suppliedconfiguration-related data and quality assessments and computes one ormore configuration complexity scores. Configuration complexity scoresare numerical results that quantify aspects of externally-perceivedconfiguration complexity, including but not limited to: (i) the amountof time and effort that must be expended to achieve a configurationgoal; (ii) the level of skill required to achieve such a goal withouterror (or conversely the likely error rate at a given insufficient skilllevel); (iii) the likelihood that a configuration error will causedamage to the system, and the severity of that damage; (iv) the amountof external information that must be brought to bear to achieve aconfiguration goal and the difficulty of obtaining that information; (v)the demands on various cognitive capabilities of a human operatorperforming a configuration task, such as memory; and (vi) the degree ofinterdependency between configuration-related data or procedures.

Such illustrative configuration complexity scores are quantitative; theyare reproducible given the same input data; and they are objective,based solely on input data plus pre-defined complexity algorithms andmodels.

Finally, a last phase in the configuration complexity evaluation processinvolves the reporter component of the system. This component takes thecomplexity scores produced by the complexity analyzer and producesreports usable by human system administrators and other people affectedby configuration complexity as well as machine-readable reports usable,for example, by tools that attempt to optimize configurationsautomatically to reduce complexity. The reporter component may applymodels that map complexity scores to higher-level metrics, such asbusiness cost estimates, and may use user-supplied parameterizations toassign appropriate weights to complexity scores when reporting themdirectly or aggregating them into reports.

Principles of the present invention are applicable in many different usecases, by way of example only:

(1) For making purchase decisions concerning computing/IT technology. Aquantitative configuration complexity evaluation provides a means forchoosing between different competing products based on theirconfiguration complexity, which is a factor affecting total cost ofownership of the product. With an appropriately-constructed reportercomponent, principles of the present invention can providequantification of the cost differential between two competing productsresulting from their configuration complexity.

(2) For use by service providers in setting prices for services. Aquantitative configuration complexity evaluation of an IT system canpredict the amount of human management required as well as the neededskill level of system administrators. With this information, a serviceprovider can compute the cost of providing a service based on acomplexity evaluation, even before the service is deployed in productionuse. This provides valuable input into setting prices for serviceofferings.

(3) For use by outsourcing providers in computing costs. An outsourcingprovider that intends to take over operation of a customer's ITenvironment can perform a quantitative complexity evaluation on thatenvironment using principles of the present invention. The reportedresults of that evaluation can be used to more accurately estimate thehuman management costs of that infrastructure than existing methods.This allows the outsourcing provider to more accurately bid on theoutsourcing engagement and to more efficiently allocate resources torunning the customer's environment.

(4) For use by system architects and developers. Computer systemarchitects and developers can use quantitative configuration complexityevaluations to help make and validate design decisions that potentiallyaffect configuration complexity and management cost. For example, muchas a developer might use a code profiler to identify performancebottlenecks, principles of the present invention could be used toidentify complexity bottlenecks. Fixing these bottlenecks could then beused as a requirement on future development.

(5) For use by system managers. In addition to their role in makingpurchase decisions (see above), system managers/administrators oftenconstruct their own automation mechanisms to simplify configurationtasks. A quantitative configuration complexity evaluation of all thesystems managed by an administrator would provide valuable insight intowhere to focus automation efforts and where to target training fornon-automatable configuration problems.

Referring initially to FIG. 1, a block diagram illustrates aconfiguration complexity evaluation system and its associatedenvironment, according to an embodiment of the invention.

As depicted, system under evaluation 100 represents the computing systemwhose configuration complexity is being assessed. The system underevaluation comprises the hardware components and software componentsthat make up the computing system. The system under evaluation isconfigured and maintained by its human administration staff 101,comprising one or more human operators/administrators or users operatingin an administrative capacity.

Configuration-related data collector 102 extracts configuration-relatedinformation comprising configuration controls and processes 103 from thesystem under evaluation and its interactions with its administrationstaff. In one embodiment of the invention, this data is collected bycapturing configuration processes performed by the system underevaluation's administration staff, as described below in FIGS. 3 and 4.

The collected data is consumed by complexity analyzer 104, which derivesa set of low-level configuration complexity measures through analysis ofthe configuration-related data. The complexity analyzer additionallyuses a model of human configuration complexity cost 105 to map thelow-level measures into a prediction of human-perceived configurationcomplexity and human configuration cost, represented as configurationcomplexity metrics and scores 106.

As part of its analysis, the complexity analyzer 104 may draw on aconfiguration quality assessment 110 produced by a configuration qualityassessor 109, which measures the quality of the system underevaluation's configuration.

The metrics and scores produced by the complexity analyzer are consumedby the reporter 107, which merges and formats them into human-readableand/or machine-readable configuration complexity evaluations 108.

Referring now to FIG. 2, a flow diagram illustrates a configurationcomplexity evaluation methodology, according to an embodiment of theinvention. More particularly, FIG. 2 illustrates a methodology that maybe implemented by the evaluation system of FIG. 1.

As depicted, in step 200, configuration-related data comprisingconfiguration processes and controls are collected from the system underevaluation, as described in detail below and in FIGS. 3 and 4. In step201, the configuration of the system under evaluation may be assessedfor quality. In one embodiment, this assessment may take the form of aquality-of-service benchmark test, such as a standard performancebenchmark. It is to be appreciated that, as shown, the system can bypassstep 201.

In step 202, the collected configuration-related data is analyzed asdescribed below and in FIG. 5 to produce configuration complexitymetrics and scores, which are then consumed by step 203, which produceshuman-readable and/or machine-readable reports on the configurationcomplexity of the system under evaluation.

Referring now to FIG. 3, a block diagram illustrates aconfiguration-related data collector component, according to anembodiment of the invention. More particularly, FIG. 3 depicts anexample of configuration-related data collector 102.

As shown, the first set of components, 300 through 303, collectinformation on configuration processes that need to be performed on thesystem under evaluation. These processes are collected via fourdifferent components (any subset of which may be present in theconfiguration-related data collector component, of which any subset ofthose present may be involved in collecting any particular process).

One component is a human interaction monitor 300 that records theinteractions between the system under evaluation and member(s) of itshuman administration staff as those staff members perform configurationprocesses. Such a monitor 300 might take the form of a video recording,a “screencam” capture of on-screen content, or an automated collectionof interaction with the system's interfaces, amongst otherpossibilities.

Next is a process documentation analyzer 301 that extracts the steps,sequences, and parameters that make up a configuration process from adocumented version of that procedure such as, but not limited to,human-readable documents like installation manuals and machine-readabledocuments like executable scripts.

Next is a direct entry interface 302 that allows a person to manuallyenter the steps, sequences, and parameters of a particular configurationprocess without having to perform it on the system under evaluation orrepresent it in documentation.

Last is a loader for pre-supplied processes 303 that allows for thepossibility that a configuration process for the system under evaluationhas already been documented in the appropriate machine-readable formatand simply needs to be loaded into the collector 102.

The next set of components, 304 through 306, collect information on theconfiguration controls present in the system under evaluation.Configuration controls are the parameters, executable operations, statusdisplays, and modifiable pieces of state that define and alter thesystem's configuration. Again, any subset of these components (304through 306) may be present in the configuration-related data collector,and any subset of those present may be used in any given complexityanalysis. The configuration control extractor 304 analyzes theinterfaces of the system under evaluation to identify the set ofavailable configuration controls. The direct entry interface 305performs a similar function as component 302, allowing manual entry ofinformation on configuration controls. Finally the loader forpre-supplied controls 306 is similar to component 303 and allowspre-defined, machine-readable representations of configuration controlsto be loaded into the configuration-related data collector.

The process distiller and abstractor 307 takes the collected informationfrom components 300 through 302. It combines the multiple sources ofdata together, and abstracts the resulting process by mapping elementsspecific to the system under evaluation to elements of a generic modelof configuration processes 308. In one embodiment, the model isdescribed by an Extensible Markup Language (XML) Schema that definesprocess elements and specifies how they can be put together.

The controls distiller and abstractor 309 performs the same function asthe process distiller and abstractor, except that it processesconfiguration controls rather than configuration processes, using ageneric model of configuration controls 310. Note that the controlsdistiller and abstractor and the process distiller and abstractorcommunicate, to allow for cases where the existence of controls isinferred during process distillation, and where controls identifiedduring control distillation imply the existence of processes.

Finally, the configuration data encoder 311 takes the distilled andabstracted processes and controls and encodes them into a standardrepresentation of configuration-related data. In one embodiment, thisrepresentation is captured in XML following an XML Schema based on theabstract controls and processes models. Note that the loaders forprocesses and controls (303 and 306) allow for the direct loading ofpre-existing distilled and abstracted processes and controls, bypassingthe distillers and abstractors.

FIG. 4 depicts a process underlying the configuration-related datacollector component in FIG. 3. The first step 400 is to select whichmethod(s) will be used to collect data on configuration processes. Anysubset of the methods in steps 401 through 404 can be used, or theprocess collection step can be omitted entirely. Of the four methods,the first method 401 collects data by monitoring human interactionbetween the system under evaluation's administration staff and thesystem itself, via the aforementioned human interaction monitor 300. Thesecond method 402 collects configuration processes by analyzingdocumentation or scripts, via the process documentation analyzer 301.The third method 403 allows processes to be input manually by a humanoperator, using the direct entry interface 302. Finally, the fourthmethod 404 loads a pre-specified process directly using the loader forpre-supplied processes 303.

The next step in the configuration-related data collection process is toselect which method(s), if any, will be used to collect data onconfiguration controls, from the submethods 406 through 408. One option406 uses the configuration control extractor 304 to identifyconfiguration controls. Another option 407 allows manual input of dataon configuration controls via the direct entry interface 305. Finally, apre-specified set of configuration control data can be loaded 408 viathe loader for pre-supplied controls 306.

Once the configuration controls and processes are collected, the nextstep 409 is to distill and abstract the collected data using thecontrols distiller and abstractor 309, then to encode those results withthe configuration data encoder 311.

Referring now to FIG. 5, a block diagram illustrates a complexityanalyzer component, according to an embodiment of the invention. Moreparticularly, FIG. 5 depicts an example of complexity analyzer component104. This component consumes the encoded configuration controls andprocesses 103 from the configuration-related data collector.

The complexity analyzer component first analyzes that information toextract quantitative characterizations of the configuration controls andprocesses (500). For example, the complexity analyzer might identifysequences and compute distributions of different types of configurationactivities in the configuration processes, or compute the distributionof control types and complexity of control dependency graph, or mightapply a simulation of aspects of human mental processing to compute theburden placed by a configuration process on a person's mental capacity.

Next, the complexity analyzer assigns complexity scores to the systemunder evaluation (501) based on the quantitative characterizationsextracted in the previous step. This step can involve simple datareduction, e.g., by combining and weighting the quantitativecharacterizations, or may involve model-based approaches wherecomplexity is predicted from the quantitative characterizations.

Next, if so desired, the complexity scores may be mapped to expectedhuman-level behavior (502). This mapping may draw on the model of humanconfiguration complexity cost 105, which models how the complexityscores produced in 501 affect human-perceived complexity attributes.Examples of these attributes include, but are not limited to, expectedcompletion time, error rate, and error severity on typical configurationtasks, as well as the number and skill level of human administratorsrequired to achieve those times and error rates.

Finally, if so desired, the complexity analysis results may be adjusted(503) based on the configuration quality assessment, if available. Thisadjustment may take the form of weighting the complexity analysisresults by the measured quality of the system under evaluation'sconfiguration. It may also simply be a gating function, where if theassessed quality is insufficient, the complexity analysis results arereplaced by an indication that the system under evaluation has failedthe configuration complexity evaluation.

Referring now to FIG. 6, a block diagram illustrates a reportercomponent, according to an embodiment of the invention. Moreparticularly, FIG. 6 depicts an example of reporter component 107.

The reporter component takes as input the results of the complexityanalyzer component, represented as configuration complexity metrics andscores 106. The reporter performs two functions.

First, the reporter applies, combines and weights the various metricsand scores provided by the complexity analyzer (600). This step drawsupon complexity weighting algorithms and parameters 601, which may bepre-defined, supplied by the users of the reporter tool, or developedautomatically. As an example, one possible weighting algorithm is toassign a dollar-cost function to each type of metric and score producedby the complexity analyzer, based on parameters that specify the actualcosts of human time and the expected dollar impact of configurationerrors on the service provided by the system under evaluation. Thisalgorithm produces an estimate of how configuration tasks on the systemunder evaluation affect its total cost of ownership.

The reporter's next step (602) is to generate configuration complexityevaluation reports using the data from the previous step and drawing ona library of output format specifications 603 to determine the format ofthe evaluation report. Possible output format specifications may includedocument structures and templates for human-readable evaluations of thesystem under evaluation, and structured machine-readable report schemas,e.g., represented as XML Schemas.

Referring now to FIG. 7, a block diagram illustrates a configurationquality assessor component, according to an embodiment of the invention.More particularly, FIG. 7 depicts an example of configuration qualityassessor 109. As shown, the configuration quality assessor includesthree sub-components: a test generator 700, a response collector 701,and a quality calculator 702.

Test generator 700 applies configuration quality tests to the systemunder evaluation. These may include simulated user transactions to checkfor quality aspects like functionality, correctness, and performance;complete simulated workloads to check for quality under load or stress;disturbances (such as faults, load spikes, simulated security incidents)to test quality under abnormal circumstances; and other quality-relatedtests. Response collector 701 collects the system under evaluation'sresponses to the applied quality tests. Quality calculator 702 computesthe configuration quality of the system under evaluation based on theresponses to the applied quality tests. The quality calculator producesa configuration quality assessment 110, which is later consumed by thecomplexity analyzer 104.

Referring finally to FIG. 8, a block diagram illustrates a computersystem for implementing a configuration complexity evaluation system,according to an embodiment of the invention. That is, FIG. 8 depicts anillustrative implementation of a computer system in accordance withwhich one or more components/methodologies of a configuration complexityevaluation system (e.g., components/methodologies described in thecontext of FIGS. 1 through 7) may be implemented. For instance, thecomputer system in FIG. 8 may implement the components associated withthe configuration complexity evaluation system of FIG. 1 and implementthe methodologies described herein. Also, the computer system in FIG. 8may represent an implementation of the system under evaluation 100 ofFIG. 1. Still further, the computer system of FIG. 8 may representimplementations of computers used by one or more individuals associatedwith the environment of FIG. 1, e.g., administration staff, users, etc.

It is to be understood that such individual components/methodologies maybe implemented on one such computer system, or on more than one suchcomputer system. In the case of an implementation in a distributedcomputing system, the individual computer systems and/or devices may beconnected via a suitable network, e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web.However, the system may be realized via private or local networks. Theinvention is not limited to any particular network.

As shown, the computer system may be implemented in accordance with aprocessor 801, a memory 802, I/O devices 803, and a network interface804, coupled via a computer bus 805 or alternate connection arrangement.

It is to be appreciated that the term “processor” as used herein isintended to include any processing device, such as, for example, onethat includes a CPU (central processing unit) and/or other processingcircuitry. It is also to be understood that the term “processor” mayrefer to more than one processing device and that various elementsassociated with a processing device may be shared by other processingdevices.

The term “memory” as used herein is intended to include memoryassociated with a processor or CPU, such as, for example, random accessmemory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a fixed memory device (e.g., harddrive), a removable memory device (e.g., diskette), flash memory, etc.

In addition, the phrase “input/output devices” or “I/O devices” as usedherein is intended to include, for example, one or more input devices(e.g., keyboard, mouse, etc.) for entering data to the processing unit,and/or one or more output devices (e.g., speaker, display, etc.) forpresenting results associated with the processing unit.

Still further, the phrase “network interface” as used herein is intendedto include, for example, one or more transceivers to permit the computersystem to communicate with another computer system via an appropriatecommunications protocol.

Accordingly, software components including instructions or code forperforming the methodologies described herein may be stored in one ormore of the associated memory devices (e.g., read only memory, fixed orremovable memory) and, when ready to be utilized, loaded in part or inwhole (e.g., into random access memory) and executed by a CPU.

In any case, it is to be appreciated that the techniques of theinvention, described herein and shown in the appended figures, may beimplemented in various forms of hardware, software, or combinationsthereof, e.g., one or more operatively programmed general purposedigital computers with associated memory, implementation-specificintegrated circuit(s), functional circuitry, etc. Given the techniquesof the invention provided herein, one of ordinary skill in the art willbe able to contemplate other implementations of the techniques of theinvention.

Accordingly, as illustratively explained above, embodiments of theinvention provide a system and methods for a standard, reproducibleevaluation of the configuration complexity of a computer system. Themethods may advantageously include techniques for collection ofconfiguration-related data from a computing system, analysis ofconfiguration-related data to calculate complexity of configurationprocesses, and reporting of computer system configuration complexity.The system may advantageously include a configuration data collector,complexity analyzer, configuration quality assessor, and reporter. Thedata collector may gather configuration information from traces ofactual configuration processes or from the set of exposed configurationcontrols on a computing system. The quality assessor may evaluate thequality of a particular computer system configuration, for example, interms of the quality-of-service that it delivers to its users. Theconfiguration complexity analyzer may use the collected configurationdata and quality assessment to compute quantitative measures oflow-level aspects of configuration complexity as well as high-levelpredictions of human-perceived complexity. Finally, the reporter mayproduce human-readable and machine-readable evaluation reports of acomputing system's configuration complexity, based on the results of theconfiguration complexity analysis.

Furthermore, while the illustrative embodiments above describeperformance of steps/operations of the invention being performed in anautomated manner, the invention is not so limited. That is, by way offurther example, collecting configuration-related data, analyzingconfiguration-related data, and reporting complexity may be performedentirely manually, or with a mix of manual activities, automation, andcomputer-based tools (such as using spreadsheets for the analysis ormanually collecting configuration data and feeding it to an automatedcomplexity analyzer).

Although illustrative embodiments of the present invention have beendescribed herein with reference to the accompanying drawings, it is tobe understood that the invention is not limited to those preciseembodiments, and that various other changes and modifications may bemade by one skilled in the art without departing from the scope orspirit of the invention.

1. A method for quantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with aconfiguration of a system under evaluation, comprising the steps of:collecting configuration-related data for the system under evaluation;quantitatively analyzing at least a portion of the configuration-relateddata to estimate a configuration complexity of the system underevaluation; and reporting the configuration complexity of the systemunder evaluation based on the quantitative analysis.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising the step of assessing a quality of theconfiguration of the system under evaluation.
 3. The method of claim 2,wherein the reporting step further comprises reporting the configurationcomplexity of the system under evaluation based on the quantitativeanalysis and the quality assessment.
 4. The method of claim 1, whereinthe step of collecting configuration-related data for the system underevaluation further comprises capturing one or more configurationprocesses.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the step of capturing oneor more configuration processes further comprises one or more of:monitoring a behavior of one or more human operators; analyzingdocumentation or a script; allowing direct manual entry of aconfiguration process; and loading one or more explicit specificationsof a configuration process.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the stepof collecting configuration-related data for the system under evaluationfurther comprises gathering data on one or more configuration controls.7. The method of claim 6, wherein the step of gathering data on one ormore configuration controls further comprises gathering data comprisingone or more of parameters, executable operations, status displays, andconfiguration repositories.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the stepof quantitatively analyzing at least a portion of theconfiguration-related data to estimate the configuration complexity ofthe system under evaluation further comprises computing one or moreconfiguration complexity scores.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein thestep of reporting the configuration complexity of the system underevaluation further comprises reporting results of the complexityanalysis in one or more of a human-readable format and amachine-readable format.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein theautomated method is useable to dynamically adapt one or moreconfiguration interfaces to minimize configuration complexity. 11.Apparatus for quantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with aconfiguration of a system under evaluation, comprising: a memory; and atleast one processor coupled to the memory and operative to: (i) collectconfiguration-related data for the system under evaluation; (ii)quantitatively analyze at least a portion of the configuration-relateddata to estimate a configuration complexity of the system underevaluation; and (iii) report the configuration complexity of the systemunder evaluation based on the quantitative analysis.
 12. The apparatusof claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further operative toassess a quality of the configuration of the system under evaluation.13. The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the reporting operation furthercomprises reporting the configuration complexity of the system underevaluation based on the quantitative analysis and the qualityassessment.
 14. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the operation ofcollecting configuration-related data for the system under evaluationfurther comprises capturing one or more configuration processes.
 15. Theapparatus of claim 11, wherein the operation of collectingconfiguration-related data for the system under evaluation furthercomprises gathering data on one or more configuration controls.
 16. Theapparatus of claim 15, wherein the operation of gathering data on one ormore configuration controls further comprises gathering data comprisingone or more of parameters, executable operations, status displays, andconfiguration repositories.
 17. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein theoperation of reporting the configuration complexity of the system underevaluation further comprises reporting results of the complexityanalysis in one or more of a human-readable format and amachine-readable format.
 18. An article of manufacture forquantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with a configurationof a system under evaluation, comprising a machine readable mediumcontaining one or more programs which when executed implement the stepsof: collecting configuration-related data for the system underevaluation; quantitatively analyzing at least a portion of theconfiguration-related data to estimate a configuration complexity of thesystem under evaluation; and reporting the configuration complexity ofthe system under evaluation based on the quantitative analysis.
 19. Asystem for quantitatively evaluating a complexity associated with aconfiguration of a system under evaluation, comprising: aconfiguration-related data collector for collectingconfiguration-related data for the system under evaluation; a complexityanalyzer for quantitatively analyzing at least a portion of theconfiguration-related data to estimate a configuration complexity of thesystem under evaluation; and a reporter for reporting the configurationcomplexity of the system under evaluation based on the quantitativeanalysis.